It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 46
13
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


Wow, no need to be so apologetic or so socially apprehensive! It's about you, you can joke if you wish to!

I don't quite understand what you mean by "disappeared"- all I can think of is those tribes who supposedly 'invert' their penis'. Not quite sure about the logistics...




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by malachi777
 


Wow, no need to be so apologetic or so socially apprehensive! It's about you, you can joke if you wish to!

I don't quite understand what you mean by "disappeared"- all I can think of is those tribes who supposedly 'invert' their penis'. Not quite sure about the logistics...


Youve obviously never had a prostate exam have you .



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by jed001
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


where does god live, show me GOD . no one has ever been able to show me scientific prrof of god. a belief in god is a wonderful if it helps you with your fear of the after life but please donot confuse it with facts


BUT,,what "facts" are you referring to?

Can you prove there is NO God?

Some believing in a creator may not be out of "fear"....how can you claim that when you are not even a believer?


i can not prove there is NO santa claus, easter bunny, unicorns, elfs, or bigfoot. so does that make them real also. something to think about; you never see God and Santa at the same party.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Zeer0
 


Thanks but the Fossil Record is not scientific method science, it's purely speculative because its not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Sounds like a faith to me?


The fossil record is actually all of the things you just said it isn't. And it has much more predictive/explanatory power than "The invisible man in the sky did it!".



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jed001
 

Ok lets take a look.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


this is great, i love it



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The SETI Institute has been searching for life for over 50 years… all they need is a simple pattern to confirm intelligent life. An entire DNA sequence would fill 200 1,000-page New York City telephone directories. DNA is found in ALL living things. If you unwrap all the DNA you have in all your cells, you could reach the moon 6000 times! It would take a person typing 60 words per minute, eight hours a day, around 50 years to type the human genome.

Yet we see a simple clay pot and shout intelligence created this, yet something as complex as even the 'simple' cell HAS to be created by randomness and time.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69
 


So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.


Wow, that was an awful reply. Perhaps we are seeing animals evolve, bare in mind scientists discover "new species" every days, and I mean thousands every day. Alot of them look very similar to another animal, for example, they could find a new species of deer which looks very similar to another deer but with a few different changes. Its call adapting. We are evolving, our brain is getting bigger and bigger, which scientists have proven.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
www.dabar.org...

II. ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE Having completed the survey of scientific principles, the examination of archaeological data, as seen in the light of these principles, now comes under consideration. The problem awaiting solution is as follows: Do archaeological data lend themselves to scientific treatment? In answering this question it will be necessary to apply archaeological finds to the principles of scientific method. If archaeological facts are amenable to scientific treatment, then our question as to whether or not archaeology can be recognized as a full-fledged science will have been answered.


please read and then finally understand how archaeology and the scientific method are great partners and all of its findings do indeed follow the principles of the scientific method. Thus nullifying your entire argument prior to any debate.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


anthro.palomar.edu...

But remember dont mix this up with our own evolution.


Our Genes,were altered around 10\8000 bc




KENT, Ohio, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A U.S. biological anthropologist says he's determined humans did not evolve from apes, but, rather, apes evolved from humans.

Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, who specializes in the study of human origins, said his findings came from a study of Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what now is Ethiopia.

"People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi' (a partial female skeleton) we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

Ardi is "not a chimp," paleoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California-Berkeley, told the San Jose Mercury News. "It shows us what we used to be. It bridges a gap."

Until Ardi was discovered, the earliest specimen of human evolutions was Australopithecus, a bipedal "ape man" that lived 1-4 million years ago, the newspaper said, noting the most famous member of the genus was the 3.2 million-year-old skeleton nicknamed "Lucy" that was found in 1974.

Ardi, White said, is older and more primitive than Lucy, belonging to a new type of early hominid that was neither chimpanzee nor fully human



Read more: www.upi.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

So how cant that be the case if the animal is dead before it ever get's time to "evolve"???


The genetic material is with the organism at birth, whether or not the organism reproduces and passes alleles and genetic material to the next generation depends on the survivability of the organism. There are a number of factors that affect selection of allele frequency. So your question makes absolutely no sense.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
evolution is the biggest lie in human history


first : the first logical question for evolutionist guys is that how evolution happen , what is the mechanism for evolution to happen in life forms ?
there answer probably will be : Mutations
the logical response :
For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms.
What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (things become more disordered over time) in action.

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) processes going in opposite directions!

It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

second : the lack of intermediate or transitional fossils , which mean that the claim that evolutionist people say that birds came from reptiles , LOL !! , this claim imply that you should find hundreds if not thousands of fossils that has shared characteristics between birds and reptiles and show the gradual evolution of reptiles into birds over time but no fossil has ever been found having a half-scale/half-wing or any fossil , in other words many transitional life forms would have existed between the ancestor and the descendants time if evolution was true . but Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, almost no transitional fossils have been found of among the millions of fossils collected.!!
and please don't mention the feathered dinosaurs chinese origins fossils , first one was prove to be fake so i don't trust any fossil from Chinese sources


third : my favorite one dude ,
the big nail in evolution coffin is what called in Paleontology science the "Cambrian Explosion", i will tell you what is "Cambrian Explosion" : it is the apparently rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil records.This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.
but Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.
ask them how this Cambrian Explosion happened ?! , if evolution bull# was true then we must have fossils for simple creatures evolved from individuals cells to be more complex and increasing in complexity ladder in a gradual way through time , yes read it again "gradual" way , not a sudden explosion of animals types and breeds and kinds that have massive complexity and 100% adaption to there environment, which point strongly to creation process happened at that time .

fourth : the pure simple logical argument that :
NON living things don't produce Living things
and no human with reasonable mind power can deny this .

Darwin at Chapter VI listed the Difficulties on his Theory :
1. Transitions -- Absence or rarity of
transitional varieties
2.Transitions in habits of life
3. Diversified habits in the same species --
5.Species with habits widely different from those of their allies
5. Organs of extreme perfection --
6.Means of transition --
7. Organs of small importance -
8. Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect -- 9.The law of Unity of Type

our bodies are irreducible complex systems which mean :
removing just tiny tiny part from the system and the whole system will be fatal failure , as example removing heart from us or lungs or hands or legs, or ........etc. even remove part inside part like blood cells form the blood, and i think you know what is the result , logically this mean , that the whole system must be present from the start with all of it parts from the beginning , no gradual change here (evolution ).

and finally the reproduction is precondition for evolution to happen , then how the first reproduction mechanism appeared , and because evolution as they say is blind process then it is never logical to assume that this bull# called evolution caused every creature to have reproduction mechanism

evolution = BULLSH!T



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Archirvion
 




KENT, Ohio, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A U.S. biological anthropologist says he's determined humans did not evolve from apes, but, rather, apes evolved from humans. Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, who specializes in the study of human origins, said his findings came from a study of Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what now is Ethiopia.


No legitimate scientist claims or thinks humans evolved from chimps or apes. They merely share a common ancestor. Saying that chimps evolved from humans is quite deceptive wording. Chimps evolved from the same newt like ancestor that the homo sapien (or really the entire homo genus eventually) did. Evolution is scientific fact, and you won't find any real scientists that disagree with it. The only evolution debates going on right now are about particular details within the theory. The theory itself is solid and backed by tons upon tons of facts that can't be denied without denying the entire field of biology. The only people that deny it are religious nutjobs and they do it dishonestly. They'll oversimplify a complex process by saying something like, "Evolution claims that we all came from nothing and poof! we're here!". No. That's what your religion claims. Don't be deceived, people.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
See when I'm talking about deceptive religious people, this pretty much sums it up.


Originally posted by JewInIsrael
For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms.
What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.


That is a much different type of mutation. The basics of evolution can be observed today in something as simple as a field mouse and the passing down of genetic traits. Lets say one out of ten of these mice are born with black fur, the rest are born tan. They live mostly in big fields, with is optimum for their survival. Guess what happens to most of the black ones? They get eaten by predators because they don't blend in well with environment. Therefor the brown ones survive and reproduce. It's not some magical process.


It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

What's even more amazing is that you have no idea evolution or the 2nd law of thermodynamics are about. Please drop me a detailed explanation of the 2nd law and how it goes against evolution. Evolution is about adaptations to environments, and has nothing to do with becoming more or less ordered.



second : the lack of intermediate or transitional fossils , which mean that the claim that evolutionist people say that birds came from reptiles , LOL !! , this claim imply that you should find hundreds if not thousands of fossils that has shared characteristics between birds and reptiles and show the gradual evolution of reptiles into birds over time but no fossil has ever been found having a half-scale/half-wing or any fossil , in other words many transitional life forms would have existed between the ancestor and the descendants time if evolution was true . but Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, almost no transitional fossils have been found of among the millions of fossils collected.!! and please don't mention the feathered dinosaurs chinese origins fossils , first one was prove to be fake so i don't trust any fossil from Chinese sources

Every single fossil is a transistional fossil. YOU are a transistional fossil between your parents and your children (if you have them). You are not going to see some exact hybrid of bird and reptile. Are you kidding me? There are tons of fossils that show similarities between birds and dinosaurs. The changes are small and happen over a million + year period, to adapt to various environment, like what I showed you from the field mouse example above. If the field burned down and all that was left was ash and dark rock, the 1 in 10 black field mouse would survive while the brown ones die out or find a new environment, and more mouses would have black fur. At the end of the Triassic era, the world drastically changed which caused most of the traditional dinosaurs to go extinct, but others came to the front and survived. Read up on a what a transitional fossile actually is because there are millions of them.


the big nail in evolution coffin is what called in Paleontology science the "Cambrian Explosion", i will tell you what is "Cambrian Explosion" : it is the apparently rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil records.This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.

Deception again. The Cambrian Explosion actually took place within a period of 70-80 MILLION years. That isn't sudden at all. If it was god or some intelligent creator, why would it take 80 million years to create simple ocean life? Why intentionally mislead people?


fourth : the pure simple logical argument that : NON living things don't produce Living things and no human with reasonable mind power can deny this .

Which part of evolution does this go against? Evolution is the science about the diversity of life on earth, NOT the origin. Evolution didn't create life. It diversified it. It's obvious you are either intentionally deceiving people or you are ignorant of the theory itself and probably science as whole. The knowledge is out there, a simple google search will provide you with tons upon tons of great scientific reading material. Evolution has "evolved" far beyond Darwin, so why even mention him? He made his theory before genetics and cellular biology was even discovered. And what a coincidence, the genetics confirm exactly what the fossil record has suggested.

Irreducible complexity is beyond debunked.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JewInIsrael
 


Did you get all of these "arguments" from Answersingenesis? Most of why this post is wrong has already been pointed out, but I will touch on the argument regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you actually knew what it said instead of parroting some propaganda site you would know that the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. The Earth is far from a closed system as we are constantly receiving energy from the Sun and other stars. Creationists really need to stop talking about things they don't know anything about.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
There are 46 pages or replies right now, and I'm not going to read them, so I'll just say..

Please tell me that someone explained to the poster that that isn't the way evolution works. There isn't any point where stuff sudddenly changed. It was graudual over hundreds of thousands/millions of years. Something along the lines of one species suddenly having eyes that are only 95% of the size of others in it's species. Or a fish's fin moving 1/2 inch lower over 300 generations of fish.

Or how, over a large period of time, as humans evolved around the world, their skin tones began to change, in order to better suit them for their differenting living environment.

Because of things like that, can you see the absurdity of saying that the lack of a repeatable scientific method analysis for evolution is impossible.For it to be "repeatable" would take millions of years.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JewInIsrael
 


evolution is the biggest lie in human history

OK, so in the interest of a level playing field, I'll stop replying to your post when I hit the very first factually inaccurate statement and assume the rest is just the usual pack of lies spouted by creationists. Fair enough? Great, let's play.


first : the first logical question for evolutionist guys is that how evolution happen , what is the mechanism for evolution to happen in life forms ?
there answer probably will be : Mutations

Wow… didn't even get to your first "logical response". Here's a great introduction to the mechanisms of evolution. Next time, try actually understanding what you're arguing against before you argue against it.

Honestly, I could keep going about your lack of basic scientific understanding of the second law of thermodynamics (hint: our planet is not a closed system), transitional fossils (hint: look at how complete our fossil record of the evolution of the horse is), the cambrian explosion (hint: do some honest research into what phyla were present prior to the cambrian explosion and how long the so-called "explosion" lasted), abiogenesis (hint: it isn't the same thing as evolution), and irreducible complexity (hint: look up the court transcripts from the Kitzmiller trial showing how irreducible complexity has been repeatedly debunked) but it's obvious you didn't put any effort into your post outside hitting copy-paste from creationist websites, so why should I?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by john_bmth
 


So i ask a simple question, which should be easy for you to answer as many of you claim creation is just a myth and evolution is a fact, yet you cannot even provide one piece of proof that any genus has become a new kind of animal, then you expect me to believe we can from a fish, then an ape like ancestor etc...?

Incredible.


So they cant give you what you want, Forgive them.




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
i don't ask much, i just want to know:

1. how did the honey bee know where to find honey before it evolved a method to find honey? and what made them want honey in the first place?
2. if the method to find honey had to evolve, what did they eat and how did they build their hives before this?
3. how did they develop into a socially complex system, with one female and bunch of male donators and female workers, when everything else in nature is typically the opposite? (almost seems like a joke on the rest of us)
4. how did their ability to use trigonometry based on the sun's position for navigating to honey source develop and how did all this data fit into those tiny, sand grain sized brains?
5. how did they develop the ability to dance, flap wings x-amount of times, and tell by the amount of flapping, type of dance and dance direction, where the honey was located, its quality and how far it was from the hive? how the heck did they find any suitable honey before this evolution? and how can such a complex calculation not only be provided by the returning worker, but translated accurately by the rest of the hive?
6. how did they learn to create cells in their hive in which to lay eggs, and how did the eggs survive before this invention?
7. if flowers need honey bees to pollenate them during the collection of nectar for honey, how did flowers manage to survive before honey bees evolved to collect nectar?




top topics



 
13
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join